A petitioner challenging dismissal orders in service proceedings approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227. The Court observed that while the specific remedy lies under the Administrative Tribunal's Act, the merits would be considered by the Tribunal if invoked, and disposed of the petition with just exceptions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:22158 WP No. 4352 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4352 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
K SUNDER RAJ S/O LATE P KANNAPPAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O NO.11, SRI KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD DODDA BOMMASANDRA VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE-560097
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KUMAR B M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KERALA
NC: 2024:KHC:22158 WP No. 4352 of 2024
GATE NO.10 LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110003
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ANUPAMA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF R-1 BEARING NO. SAI/LNCPE/SUNDER RAJ/2019/1093 DTD 03.12.2019 ATTACHED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA; CONSEQUENT TO PRAYED ABOVE ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON APPEAL OF RESPONDENT NO. BEARING NO. SAI/PERS/2217/VOL-VI BENGALURU DTD 18.08.2020 ATTACHED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA; ISSUE A WRIT MANDAMUS AGAINST R-3 TO ALLOW PETITIONER RESUME HIS SERVICE BASED ON HIS QUALIFICATION RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL, THAT IS 03.12.2019.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:22158 WP No. 4352 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner, who has suffered orders of dismissal from service on the conclusion of departmental proceedings, has filed this petition calling in question such orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents are heard in the light of two preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents viz ., (a) that the petitioner's remedy would be under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985, and (b) that the impugned orders are of the years 2019 and 2020, which the petitioner has accepted and therefore, they cannot re-agitate his grievance against these orders.
The learned counsel for the petitioner cannot contest the first ground inasmuch as the petitioner has impugned the initiation of the departmental proceedings before the Tribunal unsuccessfully, and if he is aggrieved by the culmination of such
NC: 2024:KHC:22158 WP No. 4352 of 2024
proceedings, he must necessarily be before the Tribunal. As regards the second ground, this Court must observe that the merits thereof, and the other grounds if any, must be considered by the Tribunal if
the petitioner chooses to invoke his jurisdiction.
Hence, the petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions.
Sd/JUDGE
RB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction when the Alternative Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 provides a specific remedy.
Whether this Court can entertain a petition seeking review of dismissal orders dated 2019 and 2020 filed after their issuance.
K SUNDER RAJ
THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
B M SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
